Depends on the country; US, probably not. Many european countries, probably yes. Asia? Your gov will ask you why you would bother them with a stupid and meaningless question like that in the first place.
I was looking at the source and it appeared there was special handling on the mousemove event. I also had to introduce timeouts, otherwise it wouldn't work (not entirely sure why). So was being safer since I didn't want this to become a time sink :D
If you take the Top 500 companies as an indicator how well your economy is doing, but everything is carried on the shoulders of only 1.4% of those 500 companies then what is the point of looking at the 500 companies in the first place.
Make an S&P10 then instead. or in addition to the S&P500
That would probably be a good way to look at it anyway. Looking at the trend of the S&P10 vs. S&P500 and if they agree then thumbs up, but if they disagree then things might not be as rosy as everyone thinks
The problem with that approach is you miss out on the gains of tracking a company from when its market cap is small to when it is large, and only capture the opposite as it leaves the top 10.
This is one reason people are so concerned with companies going public later. If they just appear in their fully formed embodiments then you can only capture their growth after they are large and their death.
> If you take the Top 500 companies as an indicator how well your economy is doing, but everything is carried on the shoulders of only 1.4% of those 500 companies then what is the point of looking at the 500 companies in the first place.
It's valid to argue that success of companies in the S&P 500 is not evenly distributed, but if you really want to understand the impact of that distribution on the economy you have to look at the value of each company rather than treating them equally.
The top 7 companies might only be 1.4% of the companies in the S&P 500, but they represent roughly 35% of the market cap of companies in the index. Because of that, they have an impact on the broader economy much larger than the raw number of companies would suggest. "Just" Nvidia doing well is going to have a much larger economic impact than just Newell Brands, which I have never heard of but is apparently one of the smallest on the index. In fact Nvidia's market cap is roughly 1000 that of Newell Brands with presumably similarly disproportionate economic impact.
Interesting idea, even average would probably already work, it would give high performers some impact but not as much as now.
But it kinda misses what the S&P is in my pov. An index tracking how the value of those companies developed over the years measures by what you would have now if you would have invested in each of them
Since the democrats are not the ones in power at the moment, don't they have the bigger obligation towards the position of the people who voted for them.
Which would be exactly the demand they are making right now.
The party who is running the country does in theory have an obligation to all Americans, the opposition has an obligation to their own block.
Democrats refuse to vote the budget because the GOP removed almost all healthcare funding from it and won't compromise on that. If this budget passes as is, millions will die of preventable diseases. How is it on democrats?
Yes it’s true that those provisions expired, the Republicans are not changing or removing anything, and it’s the Democrats that are demanding additional funding to replace the Covid era funding that is expiring.
It's not impossible that an AI was asked to sprinkle in a few typos for effect, but perhaps it really is just written by a person who really loves emojis.
Isn't the difference here that to poison wikipedia you have to do it quite agressively vy directly altering the article which can easily be challenged whereas the training data poisoning can be done much more subversivly
reply